The return of Sub-Prime, part 1

Linda_D_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems you'll hope and prey for anything that will increase your houseprice, and sod the conesquences to others.

Seriously does hamish do all this inane posting for one reason only, to try and increase the price of his own house? That is very sad and selfish. Is money the most important thing is his life?

I have paid off my mortgage and completely own my home but do I want house prices to increase? No, because it is so obvious that houses are overpriced. I want other people to get a chance to be homeowners with reasonably priced homes.

the_flying_pig

Linda_D wrote: »

Seriously does hamish do all this inane posting for one reason only, to try and increase the price of his own house? That is very sad and selfish. Is money the most important thing is his life?...

i'm not sure i understand that last part of your question - you seem to be implying that H might have an interest in something other than his houseprice?

IveSeenTheLight

dryhat wrote: »

The fact remains that high house prices are not a result of supply and demand but the availability of credit.

Consider the availability of credit but no desire to match the supply.
Would credit ramp prices up.......... No

Credit does have an affect by allowing more desire to become effective demand.

Here's the dilema, do you want people to have the opportunity to be homeowners? If so, then realistically credit needs to be available, else most people could not buy.

The other solution to curb HPI but also allowing more people the opportunity to become owners is to ensure that there is sufficient supply throughout.

IveSeenTheLight

Linda_D wrote: »

Seriously does hamish do all this inane posting for one reason only, to try and increase the price of his own house? That is very sad and selfish. Is money the most important thing is his life?

I have paid off my mortgage and completely own my home but do I want house prices to increase? No, because it is so obvious that houses are overpriced. I want other people to get a chance to be homeowners with reasonably priced homes.

I struggle to understand you Linda_D

Your a : -

• outright homeowner of a lovely two bed house
• Pay a huge amount of tax
• Earn well less than £15,000
• Receive £0 benefits
• Happy to increase benefits for those on welfare
• Have £0 debt
• Spend only £20 a month (£5 a week / £0.71 a day) on food
• Gave up sex at 14
• Have 0 children (not surprising if you gave up sex at 14)
• Admit to lie on your CV to gain a job (potentially stopping an honest candidate )

The_White_Horse

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I struggle to understand you Linda_D


Your a : -

• outright homeowner of a lovely two bed house
• Pay a huge amount of tax
• Earn well less than £15,000
• Receive £0 benefits
• Happy to increase benefits for those on welfare
• Have £0 debt
• Spend only £20 a month (£5 a week / £0.71 a day) on food
• Gave up sex at 14
• Have 0 children (not surprising if you gave up sex at 14)
• Admit to lie on your CV to gain a job (potentially stopping an honest candidate )

she is a raving nut case.

Conrad

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Won't be long before the reality, ie, that default rates were not nearly as bad as expected, ensures a return to limited sub prime lending.

I've said all along the UK market is very ordered with low deliquency rates.

Sub prime lending has been on offer for the last couple of years, but the problem is that overly onus FSA regulation currently means relatively few qualify for a sub prime mortgage.

homelessskilledworker

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/04/investing/hedge-funds-subprime-mortgages/index.html?iid=HP_River

Interesting.

Won't be long before the reality, ie, that default rates were not nearly as bad as expected, ensures a return to limited sub prime lending.

The entire sub prime crisis was not, for the most part, caused by defaults of the majority of loans categorised as sub prime. It was caused by the opaque and confusing structure of the bonds, and the fear (largely now proven wrong) that the underlying performance would be so bad the bonds were worthless.

It was the mis-allocation of risk, where a small minority of truly dreadful loans were hidden in packages of much better sub prime loans, and then that was sliced and diced with prime loans, and the whole thing given a AAA rating, that was the real killer.

Now the crisis is over, and people can see actual performance data on these bonds over the last 5 years rather than hyperbole, speculation and guesswork, calmer heads are prevailing and the value of sub-prime MBS are rising rapidly.

WOW!!!

It beggars belief, that you think this is a good idea or even that this is even a remote possibilty when the crisis has not even been cleared up yet.

Just as a reminder to some, even though we are in a Conservative run country, we have never been closer to communism and where he have never been further away from true capitalism than we are now.

Our Banks are state contolled(amongst other things), how on earth do you think they will get away with sub prime now.

Generali

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

we have never been closer to communism

If you believe that you should read up on the political and economic history of the 1960-79 period, it was amazing.

Entire industries were nationalised: it was illegal to, for example, run a private coal mine, steel factory or railway line for profit as the entire industry was required to be in national ownership.

Tax laws meant that 'unearned income' was taxed at a higher rate than 'earned income' (the distinction still exists in the eyes of HMRC although the rates of tax between the two have been equalised). At its peak, unearned income could be taxed at 168%. That means that at the margin, a pound in the bank earning 10% interest would return -6.8%: you'd have your entire 10% interest taken away and 6.8% of the cash in the bank taken off you for good measure.

Conrad

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Our Banks are state contolled(amongst other things), how on earth do you think they will get away with sub prime now.

The FSA currently hamper the market so I can't see much more room for sub prime as yet.
However if FSA rules are relaxed, then sub prime can grow.

You are one of those fooled into thinking our mortgage market was chaos. It really never was. For example the repossessions on self cert mortgages are lower than those on full status basis.

99%+ of all home owners do not get repossesed - keep this in mind.

The sky isn't falling in, I promise. Your'e outlook bares similarity to all the others in the past that gave us any number of reasons to believe tomorrow would be hell. Did you know many folk were foaming at the mouth absolutely certain America would fall into massive depression with peak oil in 1978/9/80/81?

Even Jimmy Carter got fooled my the doom mongers on this.

What ac tualy happened was oil prices fell to an all time low and stayed there 20 years whilst America boomed.

Thrugelmir

Conrad wrote: »

Sub prime lending has been on offer for the last couple of years, but the problem is that overly onus FSA regulation currently means relatively few qualify for a sub prime mortgage.

No buyers for the debt though. That's what H was suggesting I believe.